Clark James Cavanaugh et al v. City of Fontana et al

Filing 13

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE: FAILURE TO OPPOSE DEFENDANTS MOTION TO DISMISS by Judge Beverly Reid O'Connell. Plaintiffs are ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE as to why the Court should not grant Defendants' Motion to Dismiss. Both (1) Plaintiffs' resp onse to this Order and (2) Plaintiffs' opposition to the Motion to Dismiss, if any, shall be filed by no later than Friday, June 10, 2016, at 4:00 p.m. An appropriate response will include reasons demonstrating good cause for Plaintiffs' failure to timely oppose Defendants' Motion.IT IS SO ORDERED. (rfi)

LINK:
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL
Case No.

CV 16-01001-BRO (DTBx)

Title

CLARK JAMES CAVANAUGH ET AL V. CITY OF FONTANA ET AL

Present: The Honorable

Date

June 6, 2016

BEVERLY REID O’CONNELL, United States District Judge

Renee A. Fisher

Not Present

N/A

Deputy Clerk

Court Reporter

Tape No.

Attorneys Present for Plaintiffs:

Attorneys Present for Defendants:

Not Present

Not Present

Proceedings:

(IN CHAMBERS)

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE: FAILURE TO
OPPOSE DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS
Pending before the Court is Defendants City of Fontana and Efrain Gonzalez’s
(collectively, “Defendants”) Motion to Dismiss. (Dkt. No. 10.) Defendants filed their
Motion on May 23, 2016, noticing a hearing date of June 20, 2016. (Id.) Under the
Central District’s Local Rules, a party must oppose a motion at least twenty-one (21)
days prior to the scheduled hearing date. See C.D. Cal. L.R. 7-9. Accordingly, Plaintiffs
Clark James Cavanaugh, Jr., Ruth Annette Cavanaugh, Mary Lucretia Holton, Sharon
Elaine Shelton, and Linda Darline Wynn’s (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) opposition, if any,
was due no later than May 27, 2016. See id.; see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(a)(1)(C), (a)(5),
(a)(6)(A). 1 As of today’s date, Plaintiffs have not filed any opposition. Pursuant to Local
Rule 7-12, the failure to file an opposition “may be deemed consent to the granting . . . of
the motion.” See C.D. Cal. L.R. 7-12.

1

Twenty-one days prior to the scheduled hearing date of June 20, 2016, falls on Monday, May 30,
2016—the Memorial Day holiday. See C.D. Cal. Court Holidays, available at
https://www.cacd.uscourts.gov/clerk-services/court-holidays (last accessed June 1, 2016) (providing that
May 30, 2016 was the Memorial Day holiday). If the last day of a period falls on a legal holiday, such
as Memorial Day, the last day for filing is the “next day” that is not a Saturday, Sunday, or legal holiday.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(a)(1)(C), (a)(6)(A). The “next day” is determined by continuing to count backward
when measured before an event, such as the hearing date in this case. Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(a)(5). As such,
Plaintiffs’ opposition was due no later than May 27, 2016. (See also Dkt. No. 8 at 3 ¶ 5.a (indicating
that opposition papers “due on a holiday must be filed the preceding Friday–not the following
Tuesday”).)
CV-90 (06/04)

CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL

Page 1 of 2

LINK:
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL
Case No.

CV 16-01001-BRO (DTBx)

Title

CLARK JAMES CAVANAUGH ET AL V. CITY OF FONTANA ET AL

Date

June 6, 2016

Accordingly, Plaintiffs are ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE as to why the Court
should not grant Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss. Both (1) Plaintiffs’ response to this
Order and (2) Plaintiffs’ opposition to the Motion to Dismiss, if any, shall be filed by
no later than Friday, June 10, 2016, at 4:00 p.m. An appropriate response will include
reasons demonstrating good cause for Plaintiffs’ failure to timely oppose Defendants’
Motion.
:

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Initials of Preparer

CV-90 (06/04)

CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL

rf

Page 2 of 2